Trayvon Martin's champions should be careful what they say about the "stand your ground" law. It's possible that Martin felt threatened by George Zimmerman and, in fear for his life, countered the threat rather than retreat. Of course Martin had no gun, but what if he had managed to kill Zimmerman by, say, slamming his head on the pavement? He might have reasonably invoked "stand your ground."
Be careful.
Be careful.
3 comments:
In that case, Martin would have immediately been arrested and charged whether he tried to invoke "stand your ground" or not. The problem with the "stand your ground" law is not that it allows you to defend yourself with no duty to retreat. The problem is section 776.032 which grants the person using force immunity from prosecution unless the law enforcement agency investigating the crime "determines there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." I appreciate the libertarian intent of "stand your ground," but surely you agree any law that gives greater subjective (practically judicial) power to cops is a bad law.
What on earth does the "Stand Your Ground" law have to do with Libertarianism?
I am seriously asking that question.
There's an obvious reason Martin would have been prosecuted for murder or, at least, manslaughter if he had killed Zimmerman while "standing his ground". One obvious difference.
Post a Comment